on page

Transcription

1 Page 1 ICANN Transcription IGO-INGO Protections Policy Development Process (PDP) Working Group Wednesday 5 December at 18:00 UTC Note: The following is the output of transcribing from an audio recording of the IGO-INGO Protections Policy Development Process (PDP) Working Group Teleconference on Wednesday 5 December 2012 at 18:00 UTC. Although the transcription is largely accurate, in some cases it is incomplete or inaccurate due to inaudible passages or transcription errors. It is posted as an aid to understanding the proceedings at the meeting, but should not be treated as an authoritative record. The audio is also available at: on page Attendees: Wilson Abigaba NCSG Donna Austin AusRegistry Lanre Ajayi - Nominating Committee Appointee Iliya Bazlyankov RrSG Mason Cole - RrSG Avri Doria NCSG Bret Fauset RySG Elizabeth Finberg RySG Chuck Gomes RySG Alan Greenberg ALAC Robin Gross NCSG Stephane Hankins IPC David Heasley IPC Evan Lebovitch ALAC David Maher RySG Kiran Malancharuvil IPC Claudia MacMaster Tamarit - ISO Jeff Neuman RySG Jon Nevett NTAG Osvaldo Novoa ISPCP David Opderbeck NCSG Christopher Rassi Red Cross Thomas Rickert NCA David Roache-Turner - WIPO Greg Shatan IPC Cintra Sooknanan NPOC Liz Williams Individual Apology : Paul Diaz RySG Ricardo Guilherme - RySG ICANN Staff: Margie Milam Barbara Roseman Brian Peck Berry Cobb Julia Charvolen

2 Page 2 Coordinator: Excuse me, I d like to inform all parties that the recordings have now begun. If you have any objections you may disconnect at this time. Julia Charvolen: Thank you. Good morning, good afternoon, good evening. This is the IGO INGO Protections Policy Development Process Working Group call on Wednesday, 5 December. On the call today we have Wilson Abigaba, Donna Austin, Lanre Ayaji, Iliya Bazlyankov, Bret Fauset, Elizabeth Finberg, Chuck Gomes, Alan Greenberg, Stephan Hankins, David Heasley, David Maher, Kiran Malancharuvil, Osvaldo Novoa, David Opderbeck, Christopher Rassi, Thomas Rickert, Cintra Sooknanan, and Liz Williams. We also have Claudia McMaster Timarit and Mason Cole. We have apologies from Paul Diaz and Ricardo Guilherme. From staff we have Berry Cobb, Brian Peck, Margie Milam, and myself, Julia Charvolen. I would like to remind all participants to please state your name before speaking for transcription purposes. Thank you very much and over to you. Thomas Rickert: Thank you very much, (Julia). This is Thomas Rickert speaking and I d like to welcome you all to this working group call. Before we dive into it I would like to ask whether there are any updates to the statement of interest? Evan Leibovitch: Thomas, this is Evan Leibovitch. I don t have a new statement of interest but I did join the call after the list of participant was read. Thomas Rickert: Great, welcome, Evan. Hearing none I take there are no updates to statement of interests, which allows us to move to the third item on the

3 Page 3 agenda and that is the status of the General Council request. And I think that this is a subject that Brian will give us an update on. Brian Peck: Sure, thank you, Thomas. This is Brian Peck from staff. Just to let you know, we did check with the General Council s office. They are working on responding... Thomas Rickert: Excuse me, Brian. Brian Peck: Sure. Thomas Rickert: We can hardly hear you. Brian Peck: Okay, there it is. Okay, sure. Brian Peck from ICANN staff. We did check with the General Council s office earlier. They are working on the response to the question posed to them. They have asked for a little bit more time given the complexity of the issue. They will endeavor to have a response by next Wednesday, the 12th, and if not certainly by the 19th. Thomas Rickert: Okay, thank you very much. And so we ll leave it at that for this agenda item. You might remember that during last week s call we had a quite vivid discussion - quite fundamental discussion on whether protections should be granted or not. And in the course of this discussion the question came up whether we would duplicate work and what the reasons for the reserved names, what group were to protect certain names while others were not put on the reserved names list. This is the reason why we have chosen to invite Chuck Gomes who was the Chair of the reserved names working group at the time to give us a tenminute overview of the work the group has done and maybe to - this will help

4 Page 4 us define a little bit more clearly how they have approached an issue that is at least partially congruent to the issue we re facing today. Chuck, over to you. And thank you for your willingness to contribute to this. Thanks, Thomas. And good morning, good afternoon, good day to everybody. First of all let me tell you that the reserved names working group was a part of the new gtld PDP and fed into that. And it s recommendations were incorporated into the ultimate recommendations that were approved by a simple majority of the GNSO Council. Also, I need to let you know that that work occurred and that working group happened back to So I m going to go mainly on memory so somebody was on that working group please - and I know Avrie was but I don t know if she s on the call or not. Please feel free to correct me if I misstate anything. Ultimately the working group was fairly conservative I think in their recommendations. We felt like the - and we did look at governments, reserving names for governments and so forth as many of you know, that s been changed. So our recommendations were not followed when it came down to implementation on that and there s a variety of changes that were made for - with regard to reserving names of governments. We did come to the conclusion that the - we should use the rights protection mechanisms that were built into the recommendations to deal with names that where rights might be violated, that was a general principle that came out. To my recollection we never specifically considered nor was it brought up I don t believe, the IOC or the Red Cross, but IGOs did come up in our discussions. And again, the results of the working group and later affirmed by

5 Page 5 the full Council in the ultimate recommendations sent to the Board was to not add a lot of reserved names. Now there was the country - two-digit county code, the top-level domains that were reserved but other than that it was an approach basically to rely on the rights protection mechanisms to deal with the issues of abuse. Thomas Rickert: Okay, thank you, Chuck. Are there any questions for Chuck? Liz, I have you seen mentioning in the chat that you're there to help. Is there anything that you would like to add? Liz Williams: Yes, thanks very much. It s Liz Williams speaking. I was the ICANN staff member at the time between 2005 and 2008 who - and all of the new TLD policy development processes for not only the overall policy but also the protections and rights of others, which is the intellectual property discussions and the reserved names group. And one of the reasons why I ve been so vociferous in my criticism of reopening these policy issues is that many of us over many months spent many hours arriving at policy recommendations that closed off the discussion. And this (unintelligible) different yet - the reopening of the discussion is no different from my vociferous criticism of the protecting of the rights of other groups which seeks to expand the rights protection mechanisms for trademark owners. So nothing that I am saying is inconsistent with what I ve been saying for many years. And I would urge the group to think seriously about what it is they re doing because I believe that this group is in grave danger of having an end run done around them with the Board coming in over the top and making decisions that are not at all consensus based.

6 Page 6 And I urge you all to reconsider the discussion from last week which was the consideration of whether at a level of principle these particular organizations or anyone else require special protections at the top and second level at all. And I - at a philosophical level am very consistent about that and in terms of the operational work that we ve done within ICANN and - within a number of different working groups I would urge you all to be extremely cautious about which way you re going to go with this. Thomas Rickert: Thank you, (Liz). I have Evan next. Evan Leibovitch: Thanks, Chuck, I have a question for you as somebody who didn t join the ICANN volunteer (unintelligible) until after that was - your work there was done. Right now I see names protections taking a whole bunch of different paths within ICANN. We got the trademark folk going their way with the URS and the DRP. We ve got, you know, the map host stuff that has turned into the objection processes based on government complaints. And we have this. Was there once an intention to try and have a single regime that would take a higher level view of all needs to reserve names? Is there a reason why these paths had to take such diversion - diversionary tracks, one for trademark owners, one for non-profits, and one for what we generally look - charitably call (MAPO)? Thanks, Evan. All right, I think that - I think a very pragmatic way to answer the question, why did it take off in so many different directions is because a lot of organizations and a lot of groups didn t get what they wanted, that s fairly blunt, okay. Now - I don t know if that answers your question enough but I think that s the honest answer.

7 Page 7 Evan Leibovitch: It actually goes to my wondering why tools such as the URS which is right now being - you know, a primary component of protecting trademarks is not seemingly applicable to the work we re doing here. Or could it? That s where I m trying to figure out whether or not mechanisms that worked elsewhere are immediately inappropriate in other places. What - I m not sure what you're asking me in that regard. Evan Leibovitch: Well, just that the trademark path came with the UDRP and the URS and we re trying to come up with something else. So in the possibility of saying, well, maybe mechanisms that worked in other streams might be workable here, you know. Could the URS be extended for instance to work with IGOs? That s why I m trying to figure out what the rationale was for the split in the first place and that s what I was trying to get at. Well, yes, thanks, Evan. You know, it s not that we specifically talked - you know, came up with a rationale for leaving these various groups out that we decided that the best way to deal with rights issues was through the rights protection mechanisms that were built into the new gtld recommendations. Now coming back to - you know, first of all, (Liz), I agree totally with you that we have to be very careful about reopening processes that have taken a lot of time and come up with conclusions. But I will qualify that with this, as everyone knows, we re talking about a hugely long process from the end of 2005 to now. And so in that sense I have to confess that - you know, it is quite - first of all, we can t claim that we came up with the perfect solution.

8 Page 8 So it s not surprising that people would disagree with that. But secondly, because the process has taken such a long period of time and at that time we - I mean most of us a year ago were guessing what the implications would be in terms of the number of applications and so forth. And of course, now we have a lot more information on that and that adds some clarity to where we re going. So I totally agree with (Liz) that we have to be very careful about changing things that - changing recommendations that a process resulted in. Now back then we had the same problem we have now, it s very difficult to get governments involved. And a lot of you weren t involved in that time as well. So it s not surprising that new information has come forward. Now what we do with that is what this group is all about with regard to the issues we re dealing with. But I think (Liz) is right, we need to keep that in mind and not just be too quick to change policy recommendations. But at the same time I think it makes sense for us to look openly at the concerns that have been raised and try to work together to come up with some recommendations that the community today can support. Thomas Rickert: Thanks, Chuck. I have Alan, David, and then Margie. Alan Greenberg: Thank you very much, a couple of things. We keep on talking about existing rights protections and I think it s important to remember that most of the existing ones are remedial, that is they fix a problem when they happen. And what people are asking for, both in this - in these requests and the current blocking request from the IP/BC people are preventative. So we re looking at perhaps two different complete mechanisms and trying to decide whether that is needed.

9 Page 9 But on the point that Evan raised, first of all, my understanding is - if I remember correctly, URS does apply to these organizations, certainly to ones governed by treaty. The UDRP does not and for those who weren t around at the time or haven t read the thousands of pages of documentation there was an effort in the same timeframe that Chuck is talking about to put in place something equivalent to the UDRP or perhaps change it so that it applied to IGOs. A significant amount of work including drafting a policy was done. And - but eventually it was put aside on the theory that the new gtld process would address it, which clearly it hasn t. So there s all sorts of little bits of history around - we need to remember as we go forward, thank you. And Thomas, if I can just respond real quickly to Alan, the reserved names working group did consider the possibility of preventative type measures like changing the reserved names list and elected to go a different direction. Thomas Rickert: Yes, David, please. David Maher: I just wanted to say that shortly before this meeting I suggested in a correspondence to the group that one of the possibilities for this group is to consider amendments or improvements to all of the rights protection mechanisms to make it clearer that their are protections are available to IGOs. Thomas Rickert: Thank you, David. For those who intend to make interventions at this stage let me remind you that the purpose of Chuck s slot is to remind us of the history and what happened at that time. So let s leave discussing the question of what we re doing now for a later stage in our call. Margie, please.

10 Page 10 Margie Milam: Yes, this is Margie. I also wanted to clarify from a observable perspective that a lot of this has also been triggered by the GAC s intervention and part of the process, you know, certainly involves the GNSO Council coming up with policy. But there is a point when the GAC is able to provide its viewpoint and that also is - you know, part of the history in why this issue is coming up now. So I just wanted to clarify that. And Chuck again, I want to complement that just briefly, Margie. And the GAC did provide some input to the reserved names working group. The group at that time elected not to reserve government names like the GAC recommended. So it wasn t as if there was no GAC input then but a decision was made in the group at that time and later confirmed by the Council to not go that route. Thomas Rickert: Okay, any more questions for Chuck? Okay, I have one. Chuck, you mentioned that the - at least the IGO topic was discussed at the time but that the group chose to leave that to the RPMs within the framework of the new gtld program. Now we see that not all of the upcoming RPMs are open to IGO names. Would you qualify this retrospectively as an implementation glitch? Not necessarily. It could have been a glitch on our part as well. I mean maybe we should have looked at that further, maybe we should have - I mean we obviously didn t know anything about the new RPMs that have been added, right, at that time but - during the implementation phase. But we did know about the UDRP and maybe it would have been good for us to look at the fact that, you know, governmental organizations were not

11 Page 11 included in that. You know, we didn t obviously so maybe that was a glitch on our part. Thomas Rickert: Well, this was certainly not to blame any party but I m trying to find out whether the group at the time had foreseen protections that just through implementation did not come through. I have (Jeff) now. Jeff Neuman: Yes, I wanted to comment on that because - so I was around back then as well and I complement Chuck on his memory. There was - the lack of inclusion of the IGOs was actually a purposeful decision at that point with respect to UDRP. It had only been a couple years since (WIPO) has started what they call the (WIPO) 2 process which was for the protection of IGO names and INNs I think they were called, the pharmaceutical names. I may have that abbreviation wrong. But there was a process, I want to say 2002 through 2004 where (WIPO) had a round of consultations in order to include IGOs and pharmaceutical names in the UDRP. The ICANN Board had specifically addressed this issue and voted it down. And led by a committee that was put together by the Board, I think (Jonathan Cohen) had led that initiative back in the early 2000s of getting all the input in. In fact, at that time a number of governments actually opposed the inclusion of IGOs in the UDRP because at the time it was seen as adding additional protections that were above and beyond what the law granted in a number of the countries. So for example, in the United States there s no - I shouldn t say there s no, but there s - but the protections for IGOs are not as (unintelligible) as in other countries.

12 Page 12 Thomas Rickert: Somebody is (unintelligible). ((Crosstalk)) Thomas Rickert: Can you please put your microphones on mute if you're not speaking, thank you. Jeff Neuman: So I m not saying things haven t changed and I m sure people like - I know (David) down here from (WIPO) but at the time it was definitely a conscious decision by the people that were in the reserved names working group and others not to include the IGOs in the UDRP or even to recommend it because of the process that had just ended a couple years prior. Now again, that s just historical. I m not saying that needs to be binding now going forward. But I don t see it as a glitch back then. I see it was done purposefully. Thomas Rickert: Okay, I think what I m - and sorry for keeping on asking but there have been allegations that the work that this group is conducting might contravene from a policy work of this reserved names working group. And I m trying to find out whether this is true or not. In other words, whether the group at the time had foreseen certain protections to be in place or whether it was an intentional decision not to grant any protections either by not putting certain designations on the reserved names list or foreseeing that those protections would stem from other RPMs. Chuck? In response to your question, Thomas, I - (Jeff) said it correctly. I mean whereas we didn t specifically look at Red Cross and IOC.

13 Page 13 In looking at IGOs and even government names, okay, it was a conscious decision on the part of the group with the consensus on the part of the group, I can t say that it was full consensus, but consensus - strong support on the part of the reserved names working group to not add names like that to the reserved names list. So to change that now, yes, it would be contravention of policy that was approved. I m not saying that because I think that we necessarily should not do that but I think the answer is, yes, it would be going a different direction than what was recommended. Thomas Rickert: Well, we would - you know, in order for that to contravene we would need to use the reserved names list as a tool. You know, there might be other solutions to it but that s very helpful because I think that s maybe one of the major concerns that have been voiced. I have Alan and then I would like to move to the next topic. Alan Greenberg: Yes, just one quick comment, use the term contravene and I don t think that s the appropriate term. This is a policy process and it may well result in a different policy process than the previous one did. And things change over time. But contravene sort of says we re doing something which is illegal and I think we re going through due process right now on potentially changing something. So there s a subtle difference between the two or maybe not subtle, thank you. Thomas Rickert: Thanks for the clarification. Brian, may I now invite you to give us some information on the final issue report on the IGO/INGO names. Brian Peck: Sure, thank you, Thomas. And my apologies up front for those of you who are already familiar with the report but given the number of new people that have

14 Page 14 joined this working group we d like to briefly summarize the objectives and the recommendations report as well as I think I ll spend most of the time during this brief presentation on the issues that the issue report identified as issues to - as to be concerned by this working group. The final issue report with the recommendations and the key aspects were both adopted and reflected by - well, adopted by the GNSO Council in initiating this PDP. Basically that the PDP was initiated. We have representatives from the IGOs, Red Cross/Red Crescent movement, and the IOC movement participating in our working group. We did recommend and the GNSO Council did adopt or approve that the PDP scope would consider expanding any new gtld protections for these organizations to existing gtlds as well. And of course, in our working group charter we are trying to, you know, facilitate an expedited work plan, you know, in order to meet the timelines we re all aware of in terms of the designation of the first round of new gtlds next year. In terms of the objectives and issues to be taken up by the working group, again, these are reflected in the working group charter that was adopted by this group. The objective, of course, is to define the type of organizations that qualify for any top and second level protections. And of course, it just mentions structure the PDP in such a way to effectively determine any recommendations in a timely fashion given the designation of the new gtlds. And of course now mechanisms to accommodate any protections that would expend to all new - all gtlds, excuse me. In terms of - sorry, in terms of the issues to explore, again, most of these I think are reflected in the working group charter, but just to kind of briefly give a little background on - these are identified in more detail in the report itself -

15 Page 15 the definition of the international organizations, what is the scope of international organizations that should be - or that could be qualified or eligible for any protection recommendations that come out of the work of this group. Quantifying entities, the report notes that for example just - you know, in some brief research of a number of IGOs may exceed over 5,000. The number of non-profit INGOs may exceed over 35,000. So obviously these are huge numbers and so not only defining the scope of the organizations that could qualify for any possible protections the need to quantify, you know, whether we narrow that scope, the group narrows that scope or how you deal with that kind of number of eligible - possibly eligible organizations that are out there depending on the criteria or the recommendations that - other recommendations that this group comes up with. Another suggested issue to consider is the scope of existing protections under international treaties and international laws for the Red Cross, ICO, and IGO names. The report does report - or excuse me, does include the existing treaties and other (unintelligible) that have been (unintelligible) for by their respective organizations. The report also notes that there are exceptions to these treaties and national laws. And so, you know, it s recommended the group does take a look at this to see, you know, does the extent of the current scope of protections, does that - how does that come into play in terms of determining any additional special protections that may be deemed appropriate by this group. Distinguishing between the Red Cross, IOC, from other international organizations.

16 Page 16 There are obviously some differences between IGOs and these two particular organizations or other similar international non-government organizations but the report notes the submission by the IGOs that indeed, you know, if you look at the criteria of the GAC, which basically is an organization for - I m sorry, for the protection of the Red Cross and IOC names, the two criteria - primary criteria are, one, that they protected by international treaties along with protection of domestic laws and multiple jurisdictions. The IGO in their position believes that they also could meet that criteria as well. So the group looking at, you know, what are the differences in determining any possible recommendations or criteria that could be established in determining protection for these types of organizations. The other final issue the report raises and discusses is establishing an objective set of criteria to determine which international organizations could qualify for any special protections. And there are several sets of criteria that are included in the final issue report, one is, of course, the GAC that was established for the Red Cross and IOC names. The other is the.int criteria for registration of a.int name for IGOs. There was the staff recommendations - or not recommendations but suggestions for criteria that were issued in the primarily issue report that were subject to several public comments, you know, before the final issue report was drafted and included those comments. The IGOs have proposed a different set of criteria. And then, of course, there were the criteria that was suggested by the workshop paper that the Board reviewed in its - making its original adoption for protecting the IOC and Red Cross names at the top level for the first round. And all these criteria are set out in the final report - issue report. The issue report also provides a summary of the work to date up until late September when the report was being drafted in its final stages in terms of

17 Page 17 previous work. So for those of you interested in historical perspective in terms of the work on the IOC/Red Cross names as well as previous work on IGO names. The report also briefly notes and summarizes the currently available or protections that were designed to be incorporated with the new gtlds, both at the top level and the second level. Top level including of course the independent objection, the legal rights objection that IGOs could utilize, again, using the criteria for registration of a.int name. And then the post delegation dispute resolution procedures or the PDP RP. At the second level the report notes the trademark clearinghouse in the URS, of course, those being subject to community discussion at this time. So that s a brief outline of what the report covers and happy to take any questions. Thomas Rickert: Thank you very much, Brian. Are there any questions for Brian? Brian, actually - I have a question for you. In the report you are incorporating some legal analysis. Is that the same legal analysis that has been used by the Board for its rationale that was previously redacted? Brian Peck: Yes, it does include - let me - a couple things to clarify. One is there s no new legal analysis in this report. It only reports legal analysis that has already been provided, either as you mention, your particular example. It does include the unredacted legal analysis that was conducted prior to the Board s resolution in Singapore by outside counsel. And that includes the language from or the - you know, the analysis or summary of that analysis from that position paper. And then, of course, it includes some of the legal arguments being put forth by the respective organizations and their positions on their - you know, for

18 Page 18 example, treaty protection or protection by domestic laws in multiple jurisdictions. But the report itself does not include any new legal analysis, it just reports what has been submitted by various parties or, you know, historically in this process. Thomas Rickert: Thank you. Are there any questions for Brian? Hearing none I would like to move on to the sixth agenda item. So Berry, if you could bring up the latest version of the request for input document on to the screen? I have to admit that in the last 60 to 90 minutes to prior this call there was so much information flooding into the mailing list that it was hard to keep track with that. But let me kick this off by asking you whether you have any comments on the latest version that was circulated on the list. I have David, please. David, you might be on mute. David Maher: Yes, I m off mute now. Yes, I object to this new version. I support the version that was circulated earlier by Berry. The charter and the mission statement very clearly define INGOs and this is an attempt to do an add and run around that definition and expand it substantially, which I don t think is appropriate under our charter or our mission statement. Thanks. Thomas Rickert: Thank you. So you re objecting to the edits that have been made by Stephan? David Maher: I believe they were made by (Greg). Thomas Rickert: By (Greg). David Maher: I believe this was circulated within the past hour by (Greg).

19 Page 19 Thomas Rickert: So Berry, this is going to be a little bit of a challenge for you. So maybe you can dig out the last but one version while I ask (Greg) to respond. (Greg), please. Greg Shatan: Well, first off, it s not intended to be an end run. And as I said in my comments, if we need to go back and talk about amending the charter we can do so. But I think that - you know, I have yet to hear an adequate explanation other than it s in the charter about why the, you know, specific language about, you know, treaty protection and, you know, multinational legal statutory protection, you know, is, you know - creates an appropriate, you know, substantive distinction. And as I also said in my comments, there may be instances where there are multi - you know, laws in many countries but there s no treaty or visa versa. There s - you know, conceivably no international law expert or much less treaty law expert but instances where, you know, treaties are adopted and become effective at the national level without national enabling legislation. So I think that those - you know, may be procedural distinctions. And I m not saying, by the way, that there are organizations that lack, you know, protection in, you know, more than one jurisdiction, you know, should somehow be shoehorned into this, you know, where there are, you know, purely domestic organizations that have no protection outside of a single jurisdiction. I think while it may be open for debate I m not - that s not my point as to whether those should be included but rather - whether we ve created kind of a distinction without a difference or maybe a one-legged red-haired man without a limp - with a limp kind of distinction that, you know, serves to

20 Page 20 perhaps bring certain organizations into the fold and leave others out without any real substantive difference in either the missions or underpinnings of those organizations or the ultimate kind of legal protections for them. I think to a great extent they are a residual holdover from the IOC/RCRC definition which, you know, at least arguably embrace those two organizations while perhaps leaving out other equally worthy IGOs and INGOs. But I think without doing a survey of how IGO and INGO names are protected it s a little difficult to know whether there s - you know, there organizations that are being left out but I get the sense that there may be those that are. And, you know, depending upon kind of treaty protection per say as being, you know, a necessary prong as opposed to other ways of establishing, you know, broad multinational or even not necessarily broad multinational protection, you know, doesn t necessarily serve to us to get to the ultimate question of, you know, whether we are - you know, why - what sort of protections we should give to IGOs and INGOs that have international or intergovernmental aspects to their name, to their organization, to their mission, to protection of their name. Thank you. Thomas Rickert: (Greg), let me ask you a follow up question that I m reading from the chat. Jeff Neuman has asked whether you have some examples for that. Greg Shatan: Well, you know, one example I can think of is an organization that has - I know is protected by statute in a number of - or rather a federation of organizations is protected by statutes in a number of countries is the Big Brothers/Big Sisters organization, you know, which provides one on one mentor relationships for at risk children. They re in a number of different countries and I know that there are statutes that protect them in those countries but there s - as far as I know, no treaty

21 Page 21 unless it falls under some sort of broad generic treaty for nongovernmental organizations that would protect the Big Brothers/Big Sisters nomenclature. Thomas Rickert: Okay, thank you very much, (Greg). I have Chuck next. I have just a suggestion, Thomas, on David s statement. Rather than just, you know, saying that none of the edits are okay and maybe that s what we end up but there really aren t that many edits. There are a lot of comments but there really aren t that many edits in the document. I think it d be better to take this thing paragraph by paragraph and see whether there s anybody that objects to the edits. And I think we have - do a much more comprehensive job of getting to the end goal of a document we can use. Thomas Rickert: That s very helpful, Chuck. Nonetheless I wanted to give (Greg) and David, you know, the opportunity to explain what their positions are before we jump into - dive into that. (Greg), is your hand still up or up again? Greg Shatan: That s a residual hand. Thomas Rickert: Okay, I have David next, please. David Maher: Well, in response to (Greg), if you look at the left-hand side of the screen you ll see the GNSO resolution which refers to international nongovernmental organizations receiving protections under treaties and statutes under multiple jurisdictions, and specifically and so on. (Greg) is free to make proposals to expand the charter, go outside the charter, or start all over again. But I think we have to recognize that that s what this proposal is all about. And I object to that.

22 Page 22 And I think most of the people on the working group would understand that changing the charter, changing the task set forth by the GNSO resolution is not appropriate. I also - I agree with Chuck that we would have to consider the edits one by one. Unfortunately this latest proposal was put out so recently I haven t had a chance to review all the other changes. This is the first one, the first text paragraph is the one that caught my attention. Thomas Rickert: Okay, I have (Greg) again. Greg Shatan: Once again I would still love to hear an explanation substantively of why this is a good demarcation. And as I said, you know, if we need to reopen - if we need to propose a modification to the charter in order to remove or to edit that distinction, you know, I will propose that. On the other hand, if we - if there s a substantive explanation of why this is a good distinction of why IGOs and INGOs that don t meet that distinction should be left out of this process, you know, that s - that would go a long way with me to resolving my concerns. So far I think it s a - you know, probably a petty distinction but one that could serve to, you know, limit the organizations that would be effected by this, you know, perhaps substantially. Thank you. Thomas Rickert: Okay, I have David and then Chuck and after that we go through the document one by one. David Maher: Well, the answer to that question is the question ultimately of how many organizations are to be protected. There s been a consistent effort throughout the proceedings going back to Chuck Gomes reserved names working group to decide how many names should be protected.

23 Page 23 If you would accept (Greg) s proposal this opens up who the protection - possible reserve name list of thousands and thousands of names. And I think almost everyone who s looked at this understands that that is not practical. That s why the GAC for example has proposed initially at least to protect only the names that are qualified for.int. Thanks. Thomas Rickert: Thanks, David. Chuck? Just a quick practical suggestion, I think we should separate the issue of a possible charter change that (Greg) is suggesting from the completion of this survey. If we find - if it s changed and we need information later we could always go out later asking for additional information. But I think it s time sensitive and important for us to get a document out for the SOs and constituencies and SGs to respond to as quickly as possible. So I would suggest we finalize this. If (Greg) would like and there s support for changing the charter we can deal with that separately. Thomas Rickert: That s very helpful, yes. So I would like to ask you to take a look at the second paragraph of the document, the GNSO Council, and ask you for an - whether you request any edits to that. Greg Shatan: Thomas, could I just respond to what Chuck said there? Thomas Rickert: Please. Greg Shatan: This is (Greg). I appreciate the comment and I think that perhaps rather than striking out the language that I struck out, another approach would be to ask for input from these organizations as to whether they believe that the distinction that would include only organizations that have - receive

24 Page 24 protections under treaties and statutes under multiple jurisdictions is appropriate. I - this is Chuck. David, would you be okay with that modification? David Maher: No. Okay. Thomas Rickert: Is there - can I just see a show of hands of those in the group - you know, you can do that in the Adobe, who s in support of leaving (Greg) s edit in? David says no. You know, just - this is not a formal vote but, you know, just to... Robin Gross: This is (Robin). I m not in the Adobe. Can I vote orally? Thomas Rickert: Yes, please do. Robin Gross: Okay, I support David. Thomas Rickert: Thank you. All right, give it a few more seconds. So from what I can see, (Greg), there is not that much support for the edit. I guess the majority - I see two votes in favor and the others would not like to see that added - edit to be in the document. And therefore I d like to ask Berry to take it out of the document as it stands. Okay, so next paragraph has no edits in there. Berry Cobb: Thomas, this is Berry. Just real quick so that the working group understands what version we re at, the version you see before you is essentially Version 4 that was sent out to the list several days ago, I can t remember when I sent it.

25 Page 25 The only difference between that version and what you see before you today is (Claudia) has submitted some - a couple of comments but she didn t make any edits to the document itself. So that s essentially the only difference from Version 4. Thomas Rickert: Thank you, that s very helpful. Let s go through the document and find the next edit, which is the first bullet point below all the elements and then you have quantifying the entities who s names should be considered for special protections. For those who object that edit please speak up. You don t have to raise your hand in the Adobe. Robin Gross: This is (Robin). I object to the edit. Thomas Rickert: Okay then, let s do the same thing as we did with the last edit. So ask you to use the Adobe to give an indication of whether you want it to be in there or not. Thomas, this is Chuck, I m not sure your question is clear in terms of what we re agreeing or disagreeing to. Thomas Rickert: I have asked the participants of the call to indicate whether they would like this edit who s names hold - to remain in the document or whether the edit should go out of the document and the original version to be reinstated. So if you say no then the edit is going to be taken out of the document. Thanks. Alan Greenberg: Thomas, it s Alan. Could some of the lawyers on this call explain to those of us who aren t what the subtle differences - difference is between the two? I mean I understand the overall meaning but I suspect there is something deeper that I m not getting here.

26 Page 26 Thomas Rickert: Is there anybody volunteering to give that explanation? David Maher: David, I ll volunteer. It s the use of the word should. Thomas Rickert: Maybe those who are not familiar with US law you can elaborate on that a little bit more? David Maher: Well, the use of the word should in this instance implies that there is some obligation to consider as opposed to simple statement that they may be considered. It s a very subtle distinction I admit but I agree with (Robin) that it s inappropriate for the - for this document. Thomas Rickert: Okay, so with this additional information is there anybody who wants to change his or her view or add? Thomas, this is Chuck. What if we changed the word should to might? Thomas Rickert: David? Greg Shatan: Or may. Or may, yes, sure. Thomas Rickert: Okay, let s stick to may then. David, since you ve given the explanation would you have any legal concerns with may? David Maher: That - I would not object to that. Thomas Rickert: Okay, so (Greg) is next. Greg Shatan: That was my first (unintelligible) but also I think we were also talking about the difference between names and entities.

27 Page 27 And I think that there is a distinction at least in terms of their Red Cross/Red Crescent in that the protection stems in part from the Geneva Convention, which actually protects the sting - you know, the Red Cross name or, you know, string independent of the existence of organizations that use it. That may be a distinction that applies only to the Red Cross situation but I think that s why that edit was made by them. And I don t think it s a really - that important of a distinction personally but I mean we are in a - talking about names or strings. So whether you're talking about the entity or the string I guess the idea is not to limit it to those strings that are only protected as - you know, kind of the property if you will of particular entities, you know, because treaties may look at them differently. Thomas Rickert: So the alternative language that you would propose is? Greg Shatan: I would just stick with who s name may - I think that s fine. Thomas Rickert: Okay. So I have Alan next? Alan Greenberg: Yes, when I raised the original question I was really referring not to the should/may but to the addition of who s names. And I think (Greg) s - (Greg) had just addressed that now so I think I understand. Thomas Rickert: Okay, so (Christopher) is next. Christopher Rassi): I think (Greg) said what I wanted to say. It was just - you re right, this is a specific - well, it was made by the Red Cross team and our explanation is right there in the comment box. But this was because there is no organization called Red Cross alone, it s referring to a designation and not necessarily a name of an organization.

28 Page 28 Thomas Rickert: Thank you. Berry, would you be as kind as to do the edit live and change the wording to may. And then I would like to see a show of hands of those who object to that wording, who s names may be considered. Berry Cobb: This is Berry. The real time edits for this will be a little complicated. I am making those changes in the background. And every little bit I can re-pdf and show it back up. Thomas Rickert: Okay, that s helpful, thank you. So I see no objections so let s move to the next item, please, which is the next bullet point, evaluating the scope of existing protections under international treaties, laws for the organizations concerned. Any objections to that please give me a show of hands in the Adobe? Elizabeth, I m not sure whether your hand or whether your vote is still on from the last point or whether that s new. Thank you. So no objections to that I take. Next point is establishing qualification criteria for special protection of - and then IGO and INGO is deleted. Names it just says of organizations concerned. Any objection to that? Seeing none - if I m too quick you can jump in at a later state but I think we need to make some time here. Distinguish... Berry Cobb: Sorry, Thomas, this is Berry. Just real quick, I did make a mistake in my statement earlier from (Claudia) s suggestions. She did state in the chat that she had updated from changes that would - instead of just organization that they were international organizations just to qualify the word organizations. Is there any concern from the working group for including those?

29 Page 29 Thomas Rickert: So if there are any objections please let us know. By the way, this is Chuck, one of the central purposes of the PDP work was that we focus on international so that - I think that s consistent with what the GNSO produced. Thomas Rickert: Okay, now I see a signal next to (Claudia). (Claudia), would you like to speak? No, okay, so... Claudia MacMaster Tamarit: Hello? Thomas Rickert: Who s that? (Claudia)? Claudia MacMaster Tamarit: Yes, sorry. I m having difficulties with the technical aspects of this. Yes, no, I just wanted to clarify, yes, actually the edit had been from in the first question from entities to international organizations just to make sure that we wouldn t from the start bias any sort of a response and keep the focus on international organizations, which I think we are trying to do here. Thomas Rickert: Okay, thank you. And I have not heard any objection to that so this edit is going to be kept in the document by Berry. So - and then the last bullet point, distinguishing any substantive differences, any objections to that edit? Hearing none... Robin Gross: This is (Robin). I... Thomas Rickert: Hello, (Robin), please. Robin Gross: Yes, the part that I - that concerns me is the part about including taking into account any distinctive grounds substantiating their protections. That seems to be a bit one-sided. So if we re going to take into account distinctive grounds substantiating their protections it seems like we should also look at it

30 Page 30 from the other perspective as well and also taking into account some analysis that doesn t substantiate protections. Thomas Rickert: Thanks, (Robin). Robin Gross: So I would just say have none of it there but if we have to have something it seem to be more even handed. Thomas Rickert: Since I have - the aim which hopefully all of you will share that we take a 360 degree look at the issues, we would look at all the pros and cons. So let me suggest that we delete what s in the brackets and just ask whether there is any opposition to deleting what s in the brackets. Okay, none. And then the next paragraph we have levels. Level - I think that s a minor modification. And since there haven t been no objections for the last points let me hear your views for the next four bullet points in total. So if you have any concerns with the edits in the next four bullet points let me know. Give it another ten seconds for you to run through it. Okay, so let s move on to the questions to consider. The first question has been modified to add in all gtlds and then in brackets, existing and new. David Heasley: This is (David). Thomas Rickert: (David), please. David Heasley: Sorry, the Bullet Point 2 under questions to consider, I object to striking out INGOs and replacing it with and other organizations. It s the same issue as on our first paragraph. The scope of this working group is IGOs and INGOs as that term is defined.

31 Page 31 Thomas Rickert: Okay, so since that is consistent with the point that we had previously asked for (unintelligible) unless I hear any opposition we do this edit as requested by (David). Okay, any objection to the edit in Question 1? Then there s another edit in Question 2. Any objection to that edit? David Heasley: That s the one I was speaking of. Berry Cobb: Yes, and this is Berry. I m sorry to be difficult here. Am I supposed to remove the IGO/INGO? I wasn t clear on your statement, (David), I m sorry. David Heasley: No, it was just to go back to IGO and - IGOs and INGOs and take out the other edit and other organizations. Thomas Rickert: That would apply for the first bullet point? David Heasley: No, the second and third. Thomas Rickert: Also in the first bullet point in the section above. And then it s in the second question and in the third question. David Heasley: Right. Thomas Rickert: So we re going to have that tweaked by... Berry Cobb: This is Berry. I guess that s kind of a contradiction to including international organizations back at the top. So we re - if I understand this correctly either we all agree that it s IGOs and INGOs and not international organizations or the counter is that we include - when we make the statement that it s IGOs, INGOs, and other international organizations.

32 Page 32 And I believe, (David), you just want IGOs and INGOs but there is the opposite that wants other international organizations. Is that correct? David Heasley: I m sorry. I m proposing that we stick with the GNSO resolution language which is IGOs and INGOs receiving protection and so on. And then once that s defined we can just refer throughout to IGOs and INGOs. Berry Cobb: Okay, I think I understand. Thomas Rickert: And since we have dealt with that earlier on I think in order to make the document consistent, Berry, you can change the points in the document below. I have (Christopher) next. Christopher Rassi: Yes, I think we proposed the change international organizations. The reason is stated in our first comment box. It s to incorporate our organizations as well, which are also part of the PDP. INGO and IGO would not necessarily incorporate the international committee, the Red Cross and the federation, which have different legal status whereas international organizations was seen as broader to incorporate all. I imagine we re supposed to be included in this as well, that s why we made the comment. Thomas Rickert: Okay, Alan, please. Alan Greenberg: My recollection is the issue report specifically defined INGO as referring to the IOC and Red Cross movement and possibly others but specifically includes them regardless of whether it is semantically a good and accurate description of it. Thomas Rickert: Okay, (Christopher), is that good enough of an explanation for you?